Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, where appellant challenged the CIA's Glomar response to his request for "all information or records relevant to... Sveinn B. Valfells." The court held that appellant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the CIA had officially acknowledged any record responsive to his FOIA request. Although the CIA confirmed that some unspecified "CIA-originated information" was redacted from an FBI report, appellant could not isolate any specific CIA record that had been officially acknowledged by the CIA. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the CIA was affirmed. View "Moore, III v. CIA" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of serious drug offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he declined the prosecution's plea deal proposal and instead went to trial. The court concluded that defendant could not show a reasonable probability that he would have pled guilty if he had been fully informed of the sentencing permutations and therefore could not show the required reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, the court found no basis in the record to disturb the district court's credibility finding and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

This case was before the court on a petition to review the opinion and order of the Commission permanently denying petitioner, an attorney admitted to practice in New York state, the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission, pursuant to rule 102(3)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and Section 4C of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Act), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. On appeal, petitioner contended that the procedure employed by the Commission was unconstitutional. The court held that the Commission acted within its authority in sanctioning him; petitioner was on notice of his duty to comply with the New York Bar disciplinary rules and the standard of conduct proscribed by Rule 102(3)(1)(ii) and Section 4C of the Act; there was substantial evidence for the Commission's finding that petitioner engaged in intentional improper professional conduct; and the Commission did not abuse its discretion in its choice of sanctioning petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "Altman v. SEC" on Justia Law

This case involved the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152, which provided that "the majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." For 75 years, the Board had counted non-voters as voting against union representation, thereby requiring a majority of eligible voters to affirmatively vote for representation before a union could be certified. In 2010, the Board issued a new rule that elections would be decided by a majority of votes cast, and those not voting would be understood as acquiescing to the outcome of the election. Appellants challenged the new rule, claiming that it violated the statute and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment to the Board. Upon review, the court agreed with the district court and affirmed the judgment. View "Air Transport Assoc. of America v. Nat'l Mediation Bd." on Justia Law

The Corps issued a generic nationwide permit (NWP 46), pursuant to its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1344(e), allowing persons to secure approval for qualifying discharges into "waters of the United States" without going through the more laborious process of securing an individual permit. NAHB appealed from the district court's dismissal of its challenge to the Corps' authority to issue the permit. The district court held that the NAHB had standing to pursue its claim but ultimately granted summary judgment for the Corps on the merits. The court held that because NAHB lacked standing to bring suit, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Natl Assoc. of Home Builders v. US Army Corps of Engineers, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, an African-American female attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel of the PBGC, filed suit in district court against the PBGC, claiming employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Appellant appealed two issues: first, claims of race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation, arising out of four discrete episodes; second, a claim of retaliatory hostile work environment arising not only out of the four discrete episodes but also out of various other events as to which she raised claims that were time-barred. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims of race and gender discrimination and of unlawful retaliation where the court did not believe that the PBGC's failure to remedy the various critiques and epithets to which appellant's fellow employees subjected her would have persuaded a reasonable employee to refrain from making or supporting charges of discrimination. The court held, however, that the district court erred to the extent that it categorically excluded her time-barred complaints in considering the hostile work environment claim, thus failing to employ the Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan analysis, including a determination of which acts exhibit the relationship necessary to be considered part of the same actionable hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the court remanded for a determination of which, if any acts, should have been included under Morgan. View "Baird v. Gotbaum" on Justia Law

AMEA purchases power wholesale from various sources, including Southern, and sells it to 11 municipally owned utilities in Alabama. AMEA uses "unbundled" transmission service provided by one of Southern's subsidiaries. When AMEA uses Southern's transmission system for such unbundled transmission, it pays the "Open Access Transmission Tariff" paid by any party receiving such service from Southern. Southern also sells power directly to retail consumers in Alabama. For the transmission of these "bundled" retail sales, it uses the Alabama component of its transmission system, which has lower unit costs than its transmission system as a whole. According to AMEA, the relatively high cost of transmission service in Georgia drives Southern's systemwide average above its Alabama unit costs. AMEA subsequently filed a complaint with FERC, challenging the rate differential. At issue was whether Southern's pricing violated FERC's comparability policy. Giving FERC the appropriate level of deference on its interpretation of its own orders, the court concluded that it did not. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "AL Municipal Elec. Authority v. FERC" on Justia Law

Church & Dwight, the leading manufacturer of condoms in the United States, appealed an order of the district court enforcing a subpoena and an accompanying civil investigation demand (CID), issued by the FTC insofar as the FTC would require it to produce information related to its sales of products other than condoms. Church & Dwight contended that such information was not reasonably relevant to the FTC's investigation into its potentially monopolistic practices in the market for condoms. Because the FTC's inquiry lawfully extended to the possibility that Church & Dwight engaged in the exclusionary bundling of rebates to retailers that sold condoms and other Church & Dwight products, the court held that the district court did not err in finding that the information on products other than condoms was reasonably relevant to the FTC's investigation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order enforcing the subpoena and the CID against Church & Dwight. View "Federal Trade Comm'n v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, which operated the Los Angeles Airport Hilton Hotel and Towers, petitioned for review of the NLRB's order finding petitioner in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) & (3). At issue was whether Hilton disciplined its employees for engaging in activities protected by section 7 of the Act. The court held that the NLRB's grievance procedure finding was not supported by substantial evidence where the record demonstrated that Hilton managers addressed group grievances relating to hotel equipment, employee uniforms, working conditions, and other matters on numerous occasions. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review with respect to the NLRB's assessment of the May 11 protest and remanded the issue for reconsideration. The court held, however, that the NLRB met its burden under section 8(a)(3) where ample evidence supported the NLRB's finding that anti-union animus played a role in Hilton's decision to issue warnings. Therefore, the court enforced the portion of the NLRB's order finding that Hilton violated section 8(a)(1) & (3) by issuing the warnings at issue. Finally, the NLRB was entitled to summary enforcement of additional, effectively uncontested rulings. View "Fortuna Enterprises, L.P. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Arc Bridges petitioned for review of a NLRB order finding it in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1)&(3). At issue was whether Arc Bridges established annual wage increases as a term of employment and then unlawfully refused to implement a wage increase after its employees became unionized. The district court concluded that Arc Bridges' budget review each June and across-the-board wage increase each July amounted to an established condition of employment. Consequently, Arc Bridges' refusal to maintain that condition in 2007 was inherently destructive of the employees' rights. The court held that the NLRB's decision was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, denied the cross-petition for enforcement, and set aside the NLRB's order. The court also remanded the case for further proceedings in light of the NLRB's decision to reserve judgment on the Wright Line theory. View "Arc Bridges, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law